** John M. Ziman. 1968. '''Public Knowledge''': An Essay Concerning the Social Dimensions of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

** John M. Ziman. 1968. '''Public Knowledge''': An Essay Concerning the Social Dimensions of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Line 9:

Line 30:

* [http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mwick/ Papers by Michael Wick]

* [http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mwick/ Papers by Michael Wick]

−

== on irc ==

−

For discussions like this we really need a tangents/talk channel and a get-shit-done channel.

−

: every chan should have a get-shit-done channel. what to name it? sj

−

:: ## tends to mean off-topic -jgay

−

::: so what means more-on-topic? sj

= CITE UNSEEN =

= CITE UNSEEN =

Line 23:

Line 39:

=== McCallum and Wollach ===

=== McCallum and Wollach ===

−

; McCallum

+

; Andrew McCallum

+

: He did Rexa and then here two short descriptions of papers he published last year http://pastebin.com/m18a601a6

: The two essays are "Learning to Predict the Quality of Contributions to Wikipedia" and "Topic Models Conditioned on Arbitrary Features with Dirichlet-multinomial Regression". I think if he can automate 90% accuracy rates with his programs, then he'll know what kinds of citations are good ones.

: The two essays are "Learning to Predict the Quality of Contributions to Wikipedia" and "Topic Models Conditioned on Arbitrary Features with Dirichlet-multinomial Regression". I think if he can automate 90% accuracy rates with his programs, then he'll know what kinds of citations are good ones.

: Also with Hannah Wallach he did a great paper entitled "Community-based Link Prediction with Text."

: Also with Hannah Wallach he did a great paper entitled "Community-based Link Prediction with Text."

Line 64:

Line 81:

#misleading cite - intended to confuse the course of a discussion; cite doesn't affect the argument the way it's implied to

#misleading cite - intended to confuse the course of a discussion; cite doesn't affect the argument the way it's implied to

−

== I AM THE ANTICITES ==

+

+

== asides ==

+

=== on irc ===

+

For discussions like this we really need a tangents/talk channel and a get-shit-done channel.

+

: every chan should have a get-shit-done channel. what to name it? sj

+

:: ## tends to mean off-topic -jgay

+

::: so what means more-on-topic? sj

+

+

+

= I AM THE ANTICITES =

''to come...''

''to come...''

Revision as of 05:55, 7 October 2008

From a 10-6-2008 discussion on #openlibrary on irc.freenode.net

Reffer madness part I-II.

Introduction:

citations lack specificity.

as a result they mislead, they conflict, they obfuscate

they don't aggregate, they don't prioritize, they don't elaborate

slach lanu.

you have to track down the original to know how and in what sense and at what depth a source was cited and whether the source is relevant, a flimsy self-published rag, or not evey traceable.

and who has time or access to do that?

mako suggests: draft a standard for identifying types of refs, advocate for interest, start using it somewhere high-profile

sj suggests: blogging about this process, drawing in people who have though about this, defining it in a way that it can improve Wikipedia citation style and scalability of authority

CITE UNSEEN

on classifying academic papers

<jgay> another piece of software, Cora Research Paper Classification [relational document classification] - Research papers classified into a topic hierarchy with 73 leaves. We call this a relational data set, because the citations provide relations among papers.

err, rather, those are data sets we can use with the osftware

McCallum and Wollach

The two essays are "Learning to Predict the Quality of Contributions to Wikipedia" and "Topic Models Conditioned on Arbitrary Features with Dirichlet-multinomial Regression". I think if he can automate 90% accuracy rates with his programs, then he'll know what kinds of citations are good ones.

Also with Hannah Wallach he did a great paper entitled "Community-based Link Prediction with Text."

<mako> jgay: hanna mentioned tihs

<jgay> mako, his more recent work is more relevant, though

on reffing

Different ways of saying the same thing: revisit until all is self-similar and beautiful.

classes of refs

implying the reference is viewed positively and as a source of accuracy/legitimacy:

<sj> there's actually a lot of conflation of proximal reference with original source that goes on when one is lazy or pressed for time leading at times to the wrong people being recognized for discoveries when this was not their intent

<jgay> _sj_, yeah, that is really common.

the anti-ref: 'presents a different and possibly incompatible perspective'

'used as inspiration for this section' v. 'referred to for research but provided no inspiration for any section'

uses of sources

"I am relying on this source"

"I am refuting this source"

"I found this a source of amusement"

"this source was in my pile of library books at the end of the day, like the extra screws left over when you're done putting your whatsit back together"

types of cites

nocite - influential work is used but not referenced or cited.

noncite - incluential work is referenced in text but not in a cite

anticite - citing a work to indicate it was read or reviewed as a potential reference, but could not be used anywhere in the work

fauxcite - a random cite to make a section look better reffed than it is, not related

selfcite - citing self's work as prior art; one can cite all of one's prior publications if one is godo at this, in each new work

bibliocite - a cite to indicate a work was part of the reading/background

middlecite - an intermediary who is citing the underlying original source, but was the work directly read by the author. there can be many layers of middleciting